
r-l 



->1 



\^' 




m 




WSMi 


\ n r C.P 



.ec 



la of 'K\t>■^^• Jc)lmi SVierjTian 






-v 




Class __A_k!i_L. 
Book .$S5 



SPEECH OF HON. JOHN SHERMAJ^, 

OF OHIO, 

In reply to Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, and Review of Mr. Oliver's 

Minority Report. 



BEFORB THI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY SO, IBflff. 



The qaeslion being upou the adoptiou of lUe following 
resolution : 

Resolved, That John W, Whitfield is not cnlilled to n 
Beat in tliis House as a Delegate from llie Territory oi" 
Kansas — 

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, 
to follow the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Ste- 
phens,] in rambling from the question before the 
House. His eminent ability, as well as my inex- 
perience in this forum, deter me from such an 
attempt. He has discussed topics to which I 
will not refer — such as the Fugitive Slave ! 
Law, and the rights of negroes in the Xorthera 
and Southern States. 

The controversy now before the House turns 
upon the question whether or not the two bodies 
recently assembled at Shawnee Mission was a 
Talid Legislative Assembly of the Territory of 
Kansas, elected in accordance with its organic 
law. If so, then Gen. Whitfield is entitled to 
retain his seat here, and I would not vote to de- 
prive him of it. 

It is true, there are other questions involved. 
If the alleged Legislative Assembly was valid, 
the election law passed by it contained uncon- 
stitutional tests and qualifications, which were 
intended to exclude and would have excluded a 
large number, if not a majority, of the legal 
voters from the polls. From the testimony of 
eighteen witnesses, taken before the ivansas In- 
vestigating Committee, it appears that the same 
organized invasion from Missouri which con- 
trolled the previous elections in the Territory, 
participated in the one of October last, but to a 
less extent. In eight electiou precincts, 852 illegal 
votes were cast. But one party voted, and in 
most cases the election law was utterly disre- 
garded. The dollar tax and test oatlis were only 
designed to exclude a particular class of voters ; 
and this being doue by other means, they were 
generally disregarded. How far these facts af- 
fect the election, I shall not stop to inquir«*. If 
the Legislative Assembly was itself a usurpa- 
tion, it is scarcely necessary to inquire how far 
its edicts were observed. 

But the gentleman from Georgia claim? that 
Congress has no power to make this inquiry. 
There he and I entirely differ. I claim that 
this is a question to be determined by Congress 
alone. The Territorial Government of Kansas is 
a mero creation of Congress. It owes its or- 
ganization, its existence, and its vitality, entirely 
to the act of May .30, l.Sr)4, known as the Kansas- 
N«braska Act. Its officers are dependent upon 
Congresj for their salaries if paid at oil, they 



are to be paid by your appropriations. AH th» 
powers of the Territorial Government are granted, 
limited, and distributed, by Congress. The very 
existence of Kansas as a Territory proclaims itg 
dependence upon Congress, and it is only when 
its people take steps to form a State Government, 
that they exercise the least independent political 
power. It is Congress that divides its Govern- 
ment into three departments — the Executive, the 
Judicial, and the Legislative. Two of these de- 
partments are intrusted to the President; he ap- 
points the Governor and the Judges. They are 
mere tenants at his will — be may remove them 
at his pleasure. It is no figure of speech to say 
he is Governor and sole Judge in the Territory; 
for if his deputies violate his imperial will in the 
least, their fate is sealed. He is responsible for 
their conduct, and should be held to a strict ac- 
count for all their official acts. 

The only political power conferred by Congres* 
upon the people of the Territory was the right to 
select a Legislative Assembly, to be composed of 
two Houses — a Council and a House of Repre- 
sentatives — to be elected at such time and places 
as the Governor should appoint. This Legisla- 
tive Asssembly have power to pass laws, under 
certain restrictions, for the government of the 
Territory. The right to vote at this election 
was expressly confined to " free white males, 
above the aj^e of 21 years, who are actual resi- 
dents of the Territory. In other words, the 
actual settlers were invested with limited legis- 
lative powers, sufficient for their government 
and protectioQ while inhabitants of the Terri- 
tory. This limited power was baptized with the 
pleasing name of '-popular sovereignty;" and was 
declared to be the panacea for all sectional con- 
troversy. The people of the Territory were as- 
sured, by an express Congressional declaration, 
that they were perfectly free to form and regu- 
late their domestic institutions in their own 
way. 

We are now told, that previous to and on 
the day of election, an armed invading force 
from the State of Missouri, of near 5,00oJmen, 
marched into the Territory in military array; 
that this force was divided so as to extend to 
every Council district, and every Representative 
di.-itrict but one; that these invaders, by fraud 
and force, controlled the elections, and deprived 
the actual settlers of the Territory of their only 
political right. This is a question of fact. To 
enable you to determine it justly and fairly, you 
have sent a commission of your own members 
into the Territory, havs caused the tetitimony of 



323 witnesses to be taken, and you have now 
before you all the official documents relating to 
this election. 

Mr. Speaker, so far as the facts of this con- 
troversy are concerned, I do not wish to add 
anything to the report of the Committee. To 
that part of it which relates to the election 
of the 30th of March, and which affects the 
question now before this House, I invite the 
severest scrutiny. It is contained from page 
TO page 36 of the report. It is a bare statement 
of the result of the testimony, with dates, names, 
find references. Every material fact there stated 
is sworn to by one or more credible witnesses, 
belonging to different parties. They corroborate 
each other in most of the essential facts ; and 
where they differ, it is easy, by a comparison and 
review of the whole testimony, to ascertain the 
truth. I must say that, in my brief practice at 
the bar, I never met with or read of a case, in- 
volving complicated facts, where there was a 
more " general consistency, v/ith immaterial va- 
riances," in the testimony of witnesses, than in 
this investigation. This may be accounted for 
from the public or historical character of the 
facts sworn to, their publicity being a guard 
against perjury. And I should not have tres- 
passed upon the time of the House, but for the 
counter statement made by the minority of the 
Committee. To this I ask your attention. 

Before doing so, it is but proper for me to say, 
and I do so with great pleasure, that ray colleague, 
[Mr. Oliver, of Missouri,] who made that state- 
ment, was required to perform his duty under cir- 
cumstances of great embarrassment. His conduct, 
and that of many of his constituents and per- 
sonal friends, was involved in the inquiry; and 
while it was his duty to aid in eliciting the truth, 
it was but natural for him, and his sense of duty 
and honor would require him, to excuse and pal- 
liate their acts as far as possible. This embar- 
rassment must have been increased by the 
overwhelming character of the testimony, which 
left him a cause and friends to defend, without 
facts upon which to place their defence. 

The report of the minority covers 41 printed 
pages ; nine of the pages are devoted to the elec- 
tion of 30th March. Three of these contain 
nothing but extracts from ex parte depo-itions, 
not taken before the Committee, not taken before 
my colleague, but taken after we left Missouri ; 
and the first notice we had of them was the pub- 
lication of the report. 

Mr. OLIVER. I would ask the gentleman 
whether the majority of the Committee admitted 
and put on record no testimony except that taken 
before the Committee. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not recollect any case, 
except the testimony of H. Miles Moore. 

Mr. OLIVER. Do you recollect the testimony 
of Charles Robinson ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. The statement made by 
Moore, while he was confined, was attached to 
the testimomy, and shows under what circum- 
stances it was taken. The rebutting statement 
of Charles Robinson was taken when he was 
confimed in prison, and was sworn to before a 
notary public. A Wyandot by the name of 
Walkw ba4 BWOfa to bis alleged declarations, 



and, he being a prisoner at Lecompton, we gave 
him an opportunity to explain. 

-Mr. OLIVER. And H. Miles Moore— his deposi- 
tions were also put on record. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have already stated that. 
I say again, that of the nine pages relating to the 
election of 30th March, three are mere extracts 
of ex parte testimony. The residue of my col- 
league's statement, not embraced in theninepages, 
relate to other matters. It is made up chiefly of 
of.icial documents which had been published be- 
fore by the House — such as the correspondence 
between Shannon and the President, ex parte 
statements which I never saw until they were 
published, and overruled testimony reduc'ed to 
writing in form of affidavits. The ex parte testi- 
mony is of three classes. The first class is the 
letters of Governor Reeder to his friend, Mr. G. 
R. Lowry. Now I will state the circumstances con- 
nected wijh these letters. Mr. Lowry, without any 
process against him, was driven from the Territory. 
Governor Reeder was also driven from the Ter- 
ritory, and, as I believe, for the mere purpose of 
depriving the Committee of the benefit of his 
local information and aid. They left their private 
papers and clothes in their trunks in the town of 
Lawrence, each having his own key. When that 
town was sacked, then- trunks, in which were 
these papers, were broken open, and the letters 
abstracted. A lawyer from Atchison, fresh from 
the sacked town, brought these stolen letters to 
the Committee, but the Committee refused to 
receive or publish them. We refused by so doing 
to share the ignominy of a shameless breach of 
the law, which in every civilized country respects 
the confidence of private friendship. They are 
now a part of the minority report. It is not for 
uie to make exception to the gentleman's pub- 
lishing them, if he chooses so to do; but they 
were rejected bji the Committee, on the ground that 
they were improperly obtained. And I appeal to 
everj^ gentleman of the House, whether the cir- 
cumstances under which these letters were ob- 
tained would have justified the Committee in 
publishing them. 

Another class of these ex parte statements, em- 
bodied in the statement of the minority, con- 
sists of affidavits taken after we left the Territory, 
and after we left the State of Missouri. We never 
saw them until they were produced here, as 
printed and engrafted on the rei)ort. They were 
taken when mj' colleague was not present, and 
they appear to have been sworn to before a Justice 
of the I'eace, in Missouri. They are to be found 
from pages 1136 to 1206 of the testimony; but 
they are properly no part of it, and, as I will 
show hereafter, some of them are entirely false. 

A third class of the ex parte testimony relates 
to the sufficiency of the houses in Pawnee to ac- 
commodate the Legislature. In the early part of 
our investigation, Governor Reeder proposed to 
prove that there was sufficient house room in 
Pawnee to accommodate the Legislature, and that 
the excuse given by it for its removal was a mere 
pretext. The Committee, however, rejected the 
evyleuce, as totally irrelevant and incompetent, 
on the ground that it did not allect any question 
before them ; and in this decision our colleague 
concurred. And yet, after we left the Territory, 
yfp find that ex parte testimony on the subject 



'5-- 



8 



has been taken by the sitting Delegate, and en- 
grafted on tlie report. This is matiifeslly unjust 
to Governor l^ecdor, and was unwarranted, and 
cannot be jiistitied. 

There is still another class of ex. parte testimony 
embodied in the statement of the minority, and 
dwelt upon at great Icngtii. It is that in regard 
to the murder of Doyle and others. Now, sir, the 
Committee unanimously e.Kcluded all evidence as 
to events which look place after the 19th of 
March, 18r)(j, tlie date of our appointment; and 
the testimony in regard to these murders was 
excluded with all the rest. 

Mr. OLIVER. What do I understand the gen- 
tleman to sav in that regard ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. That all evidence as to events 
after the I'Jth .March, 18:>f), was excluded by the 
general consent of the Committee. 

Mr. OLIVER. Will the gentleman allow me 
here to make a statement to the House? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would prefer that my col- 
league would wait until I get through, when he 
will have ample lime. 

Mr. OLIVER. Allow me two minutes to make 
a correction ? 

Mr. iSHERMAN. I will state what I know the 
gentleman wishes to refer to ; that a witness of the 
name of Rev. Pardee Huller was examined, and 
testified as to events that occurred before the 
19th of March, and by inadvertence he also test- 
ified as to one event that occurred after that 
date. No objection was made, and the atten- 
tion of the Committee was not called to it. On 
that basis, my colleague claimed to have a right 
to put on record evidence in regard to the mur- 
der of Doyle. But the Committee adhered to the 
rule, and excluded all of it. This was manifestly 
just, and was concurred in by Governor King, 
the counsel of the sitting Delegate Under 
this rule, the robbing and murder of Free State 
men, the sacking of Lawrence and Ossawatomie, 
and all the multitude of crimes Committed upon 
that class ofscttlers, since our appointment, was 
excluded, and therefore it was not right to spread 
upon our records an act of retaliation which no 
man attempts to justify or defend. 

I have thus been particular in calling the at- 
tention of the House to those parts of this counter 
Statement which are not founded upon evidence 
taken before the Committee. The material facts 
in the statement of the minority are contained 
in pages from 11 to 34 ; and these I propo.=e to 
examine in detail, because it is the only part 
that relates to the matter now before the House. 
The Committee in the report allege — 

" Ererj; f/ecauu lias lieeii controlled, not by the acUial 
pattlc-rs, bui by cili/.iMis of Missouri ; and, as a fonse- 
quence, every offictr in ilie Terriiory. irom consuible:' lo 
LegislaiorA, i^xcepl those iippoiiittMl by lli" I'reaideiil, own 
Iheir position" to iiou-resuliiut votiTs None have L.uc.n 
electrd by Uic settlers. .lUd ^our Cominiti>;« have been 
unable lo find thai any poiilioul power wbiitever, how- 
ever ui. important, hns beeu exerclged by the people of the 
Terriiory." 

Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been but one ex- 
ception taken, by either my colleague or the gen- 
tleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stkpuens,] to this 
broad and sweeping declaration ; and (hat excep- 
tion is worse than the rule. It is founded upon 
the statement of the report, that General Whit- 
field did receive a plurality of the legal votes, at 
the election for Delegate, iu November, 1854. The 



evidence takenbefore the Committeeclcarly shows 
that, out of the '2,842 votes cast, only 1.114 wero 
lecral votes: 1,729 of the votes cast for Mr. Wlnl- 
I field were by residents of Missouri. This fact :s 
I not controverted hv the gentleman from Georpia ; 
j and yet the gentleman asks what evid.-nce th.;r.i 
I is that fraud or force was used in the election? 
\ Yes, sir, the evidence is full and ample. No man 
I who reads it can question it. It is true that Geii- 
'; eral AVhitfield received a plurality of all the 

■ votes cast, and the reasons have been stated ; 
: but what would have been the result of that eicc- 
! tion, if the Missourians had not gone into tho 
; Territory, no man can tell. I say that the first 
, election in the Territor.y, in 1854, now referred 

■ to as an exception to the general rule of force 
i and fraud, will form a dark mark in the history 
I of that Terriiory ; and is the more to be con- 
' demned as the first startling event in the practi- 
j cal working of squatter sovereignty, as adminis- 
I tered in Kansas. 

i Again: The Committee allege that "compa- 
! nies^ of men from Missouri " were arranged in 
\ regular parties, and sent into every Counci/ (V.i- 

trict in the Territory, and into every EepreioUa- 
\ live, district hut one. The numbers were so dis- 
i tributed as to control tlie elections in each dis- 
j tricl:' Does my colleague deny the facts ? Not at 
all. But he seeks to create the impression that this 
statement is not correct, by showing that in five 
I election districts there was no invasion. Admit 
* it, and yet every word stated by the Conr.uit- 
tee is true. Three of these election districts 
were attached to other election districts, to form 
Council and Representative districts. The in- 
vasion extended to the election districts to wlii^h 
they were attached, thus controlling their vote. 
Thus, the 8th election district was attached to 
the 7th, iu which 209 illegal votes wore cast. 
The 12th election district was attached to the 
11th, in which 321 illegal votes were cast; and 
the 17th was attached to the 4tb, in which C5 
illegal votes were cast. The 9th and 10th election 
districts were attached, and formed the only Rep- 
rescntcUive district to which the invasioh did not 
extend. The formation of these districts was 
well known to my colleague ; and yet, by not ob- 
serving them, he seeks to make a c.onti;adic(ioa 
whore none exists, and in doing so very modestly 
says : " These contradictory statements, to the 
undersigned, seem wholly inexplicable, and he 
leaves them for the majority to reconcile or 
explain as best they may. ' Sir, the fact thus 
made prominent by my colleague, that this in- 
vading force was so marshalled as to control all 
the members of the Assembly but one, and yet so 
as not to extend into five election districts, throws 
a flood of light upon the manner in which it was 
conducted, and the design of those who moved it. 
It shows one feature which is always taken into 
consideration in determining the degree of crime. 
It shows deliberation, premeditation, and, to u.'^e 
a technical phrase, when applied to criiainal 
transactions, malice aforethougiu. These dis- 
tricts were carefully conned over. No voiiiig 
force was wasted, no man was sent into a dis- 
trict vvhere his vote was not wanted to con- 
trol the election; and so completely was the 
])lan carried into execution, that while, out of the 
18 election districts, there was an invasion into 



only 13 of them, yet in every Council district, 
and in every Representative district except one, 
the movements of Missourians extended. Is this 
denied ? If so, I -would like to have my friend 
from Missouri state into which Council district, 
and into which Representative district, except the 
one 1 have named, the invasion did not extend. 

Mr. STAXTOxX. How did the Committee ar- 
rive at the number of legal and illegal votes ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will come to that presently. 
Now, sir, it is claimed b}' my colleague that the 
Free State candidates were not voted for by a 
majority of the actual settlers of the Territory. 
A table has been prepared by him, to show that 
only about 800 votes were cast by the Free State 
men for Free State candidates. But, sir, while 
this is true, it is also true that the Pro-Slavery 
candidates did not receive the votes of one-fourth 
of the legal voters of the Territory. If it is true 
that the Free State candidates received only 783 
votes, it is equally true that the Pro-Slavery can- 
didates received only 634 legal votes. 

Here is a table showing the number of legal votes 
•ast in each Representative and Council district : 

REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS. 






1 

2 

S 

4 

h 

« 

7 

8 

9 

)0 

11 

12 

IB 

U 



S o 

74 

382 

25 

32 

6! 

100 

224 

15(5 

6.^ 

12 

100 

117 

80 

160 



1,407 



II 
'^ ^ 
^ «j . 

1 c" 

Sc 

19 
25S 

12 
4 

49 

35 
152 
120 

2(5 

64 



59 



18S 



P <8 c3 

tv-3 



3 M 

1 



634 



OOmrOII. DI8TBICTS. 



s 




M 


c2 


> 
"a 


> H 
a a 


a 

s 


6 2 

aT3 


D Ik 


5<S-a 


"a 
o 


•2 C 


1.1 


'* 


2 


S'. 


h 




S: 


1 


306 


273 




_ 


2 


i 


25 


12 




_ 


1 


3 


94 


44 




_ 


1 


4 


225 


158 




_ 


2 


6 


100 







_ 


I 


fl 


195 


140 




_ 


1 


1 


100 







_ 


1 


8 


117 


«8 




_ 


1 


9 


80 







_ 


1 


10 


162 


66 




_ 


2 



1,404 



761 



643 



But it is also true that a majority of the legal 
voters of the Territory were kept away from the 
polli, »nd did not vote at all. 



The testimony shows, beyond cavil, that a ma- 
jority of the people did not vote at all, because 
to get to the polls they bad to encounter an 
armed force of Missourians, and they could not 
in .some cases vote without fears of personal vio- 
lence ; and the record shows, that out of more 
than 2,900 legal voters in the Territory, only 
1,410 voted. 

My colleague [Mr. Stanto.n] asks how we ar- 
rived at the number of legal and illegal votes. 
Sir, we did not rtly upon any general statement 
made by witnesses, but made a ctyeful analysis of 
the records themselves. The census returns give 
the names of all the legal voters in the Territory, 
one month prior to the election ; and the poll-books 
of the electors give the names of all those who 
voted. We compared these, name by name, 
and thus we ascertained the names and number 
of those settlers who voted. 

From this comparison we fonnd, that of 2,903 
legal voters upon the census list, only 898 voted. 
It appeared, however, that many persons arrived 
in the Territory after the taking of the census. We 
therefore examined such witnesses, in every elec- 
tion district, as were best acquainted with the set- 
tlers in their districts. They carefully examined 
thepoll-book3,and testified who of those named on 
the poll-books were residents on the day of elec- 
tion ; and testimony of this character was taken 
on both sides. The result was, that out of 6,300 
men who voted, only 1,410 were inhabitants of 
the Territory. Neither the mode of examination 
nor the results of the comparison are called in 
question by my colleague. 

To weaken the force of the conclusions of the 
Commitlee, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Stephens] resorts to a novel mode of argument. 
It is this : By examining the census rolls, 
he finds that of the 2,905 legal voters in the 
Territory, about 1,600 emigrated iroro. the slave 
States. He then assumes the position, that all 
these are Pro-Slavery men, and that all were 
born and bred in the Southern States. Neither 
of these assumptions is true. Very many who 
emigrated from Missouri into the Territory are 
natives of the Northern States. These are in- 
cluded in the 1,G00. Very many men born and 
bred in the South, now residing in the Territory, 
are the most zealous Free State men. This is 
the case with whole neighborhoods. Thus, in the 
fifth district, the most populous in the Territory, a 
very large majority of the settlers, as shown by 
the gentleman's table, emigrated from Southern 
States ; and in this district it is proven, and ad- 
mitted by my colleague, that a majority of the 
actual settlers are for a free State, and so voted. 
In the only Representative district to which the 
invasion did not extend, and which elected a Free 
State man, a majority are from the Southern 
States. 

The gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] 
agreeing in this with the statement of my col- 
league, says that there was no force used in this 
election — that no fights occurred. Admit the 
statement to be true, and why was there no 
actual force used ? And why were there no fights ? 
I call the attention of the House to the testimony 
of .Mr. Chapman upon this point, on page 144. 
He was elected a Councilman from the Lawrence 



district, and was a Pro-Slavery man. Here is 
what he says : 

•• We crossed iIip raviiie, mid rame very near Ihe house 
of tlie eleciioii. !^Ollle irenlleniaii h il'oord to im-; I went 
haik. aiiil \vc ;.'0l iiiso oonviT-^aiiou ahout llie nintier. He 
askrd tne if I lliDiitrhl tlmre Wits miy pro-p'-cl oCdifficiilly 
here? 1 lold liim 1 iliniiglit nol He said he whs iii liopf's 
there WDuld not be. 1 loli"! hiin.il'ihere were fiii/riK-eiioujtli 
in the place u> i,'ive ih-.-ni a fuir fijhi. ihey would do ii. He 
thouylil tliTe wouhl he no iit^e in doiiif; thai, and invited 
me to ^o down a short distance with hiin. We went lo a 
waijon. and he lilted up a cloth and some hiankels. and 
reniarkcd lo me that iheie was a coujili- nl • liull-dogfs' 
they had. loaded with mn»ket-l)alls. 'I'liey were all covered 
up ill t);e hay. with i he excepiion ol' ihe nms of them, 
they were a couple of lira««caiin(ni. I then left there, and 
went up to Ihe house where the election was held. I sup- 
pose I was voted for by ihem lor meniher of Council on 
that day." 

Others tell ns, that stich was the feelinjj nniong 
the citizeas there, th;ii if there had been a fair 
chance, there would have been a fight. There 
was no equality of forces; there were 700 men, 
armed with rilles and cannon, to 200 or 300 un- 
armed and scattered settlers. 

1 have heard the inquiry here, Why did not 
the citizens repel the invaders ? It was eloquently 
put, some months since, by my friend from Alary- 
and, [Mr. Davis.] The answer is easy. It is 
furnished by the evidence. But, sir, actual vio- 
lence was used ; men, armed and organized, as- 
saulted citizens, and drove them from the polls. 
In this very district, three men were thus pre- 
vented from voting. 

Mr. STEPHENS. I should like the gentleman 
to read that part of the evidence which shows 
that they were driven from the polls. The testi- 
mony on the part of the contestant is, that there 
was not a man there that day prevented from 
voting. The testimony of Mr. Ladd is, that Mr. 
Stearns was driven away, not to prevent him 
from voting, but for another cause. The driving 
ofiF of Willis and Bond had nothing to do with 
voting. 

Mr. SHERMAN. In reply, I will only refer to 
the testimony of witnesses, to show that Stearns, 
Bond, and Willis, were driven away because they 
were charged witli being tibolitionists. And here 
I may remark, that every man in the Territory 
was called an abolitionist, who was in favor of 
making Kansas a free State. These men were 
driven from tlie polls ; one was shot at with a 
pistol, and only escaped by jumping down the 
river bank. 

Mr. STEPHENS again interrupted. 

Mr. SHERMAN declined to yield the floor. 

I pass to the second district. What a spectacle 
was there presented 1 Ilaveyou read the plain, un- 
varnished testimony of several witnesses, about 
Jones, now sheriff, under appointment of the 
Legislature, going there with his men, and dri- 
ving the judges from the polls ? When he had, 
after giving them five minutes in which to 
resign or die, driven off two of them, he went 
with some of his men in pursuit. He caught 
Umberger, and bronght him to the polls, lie 
then by force took Judge Wakefield, an old man, 
from his friends, and compelled him to get up in 
the presence of a drunken rabble, and make a 
speech. 

Mr. STEPHENS. Will the gentleman let me 
put him right? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I cannot yield. The gentle- 



man has had his nour without interroptlon, and I 
prefer lo go on. 

The testimony on the subject is clear. It is 
given by Burson, Wakefield, and several others, 
who were witnesses. 

Mr. STEPHENS. And denied by the judge of 
the election. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is one of the «r;)ar/f affi- 
davits which I will refer to hereafter. Its mate- 
rial statements are entirely overthrown. 

In regard to the third district, I will call the 
gentleman's attention to the case of Charles 
Jordan. He is a native of Virginia, and a line- 
S|)ccimen of the hardy Western pioneer. Ilia 
head is blanched with seventy winters. He has 
lived almost all his life in slave States. Born 
in Yirgiiiia, he first emigrated to Kentucky, pass- 
ing through Illinois and Missouri. From there 
he went to and settled in the third district of 
Kansas. He went, like a patriarch of old, with 
his family gathered around him. He says : 

'■In tlie morning, between nine and ten o'clock. I arrived 
at Mr. Slinsnn's, where the eleciion was h»ld Three 
oihers were in my comjiaiiy. and as we were fjfttiiii; over 
the slile, four youii? men. all arnif d. approached us.' The 
front one acco»t"d me. as 1 stepped over the fence, about 
in this laiifjuape: • Voii ore well how am I, God dfimii 
you." or 'by God,' I .Tin not certain which. As r<i;ards 
the position of his iirm.«, there wr.s a pistol revolver 
shoved down in his boot, u bowic-knife by liis side, and a 
large club in liis h>iiid, 1 passed him. without heeding or 
noticing him. ♦ * * * 'Phe flag was floating over 
ns. just about where we were sin'nding. I told them 
I had defended my couitiry ; that that was our true Hag, 
the stars and stripes; and under that flag I never iii- 
tend lo voti\ while it floats over a sediiious mob. « * * 
I'here was a gentleman they rnlli-J "Texas" ascended 
the Slile. and proclHiined that they warned everybody to 
come forward and vote; that it vras everybody's jirivi- 
lege to vote, and he wanted both parties to come, and liave 
the thing fairly tested. He concluded with instructions to 
the I'ro Slavery parly. IJe told them when they voted not 
to leave the ground, but to stay there lill the polls vi-ere 
closed, or the Aboliiioiiists would flock in, overpower them, 
and they would lose all their trouble,. He gaid he had 
come liirllier. perhaps, than the rrsi. ajid had undergone 
more ihan the rest, as he had been four and a half days 
on the road. 1 nevt-r learned where hecamelVom. I tlien 
advised my p.iriy to leave, which wc ilid. I think, pretty 
generally. 1 then came home » ♦ * « j djj „o( 
vote, bccaute I saw we were entirely overjowcred by 
the numbers from abroad I was a Free Male man. | 
.'aw we had to b- perfecily silent on all political matters, 
or we would get inio dilliculiy. Wli'ii 1 relerred to the 
flag, an old genileman asked me if] had seen any vio- 
lence; I said 1 had not, but had seen ^ome menacing, 
with insults added lo injury, and would not vole." 

Here is the case of a man who, from his age, 
his service to his country, and his character, 
should be respected in every community — yet 
he was driven from the polls — not, it is ti'ue, by 
actual violence, but by insult and menace from 
an armed force, without being permitted to exer- 
cise h|s right to vote. There was a majority of 
Free State men in that district, but their candi- 
date was induced to and did withdraw, because 
the numbers present from Missouri rendered it 
idle to make a contest. 

Mr. STEPHENS. In the third district, the test- 
imony shows there were no Free State candi- 
dates in the field. 

A ME.MBER. The candidate withdrew. 

Mr. STEPHENS. There were not men enough 
to agree to run a ticket ; yet it is said he was 
driven from the polls. 

Mr. SHER.MAN. That district embraces the 
town of Topeka, one of the largest towni in the 
Territory, and entirely Free State. 



There can be no doubt of the position of aEfairs 
in that district. Mr. Ilalliday was the candidate. 
He wiilidrew, and the testimony is conclusive, 
that he withdrew for tlie reason I have stated. 

I will not consume my time by going through 
all the other districts. I say tliat, from the 
armed forces around the polls, the Free State 
meu were either prevented from voting, or their 
candidates were withdrawn. Such was the case 
in the 4th, 7tli, 13lh, 14th, 15th, and the 16th 
districts. 

Now, sir, I desire to e.^amiiie the statements 
in the minority report, in regard to two or three 
election districts. As to the first district, my 
colleague seems to rely upon the ex jjurte state- 
ment of Salters. I ask, if there is any gen- 
tleman here who has not heard of this worthy 
chief deputy of Sheriff Jones, and the man who 
signed the passes fur free white men, some of 
which have i)eeu published? His ex parte ath- 
davit was taken after we left the Territory. He 
states that — 

" Tin- re, were about 200 Free Stme iefi<Ient voters in 
thai d'siric, hikI iliere were from 3tiU lo -ItJO Hro-Slavt;ry 
voters at the polls that < ay, whom I Knew to be residents 
of ihat itis rici. aiul ;i «re^it 'raiiy ol" llieni voteil in my 
I)ri.'>eiice, ami liie ollieis toUl me tlie/ liail voted " 

This statement is shown to be false by m.any 
witnesses. The census shows that there were 
3G9 voters, and that only 177 voted. Their 
names are given on [lage 121 of the report. The 
highest legMl Pro-Siavery vote ever cast in that 
district was in November, 1854, when Whitfield 
received 46 votes, out of 300 rotes cast, all of 
which were legal ; and at Lawrence, in October, 
1855, Whitfield received 42 votes. Now, in the 
face of these facts, and contradicted by many 
witnesses, stands Salters. I pass him by with- 
out further comment. 

Mr. STEI'HEXS. The testimony taken by the 
Committee is contrary to that. 

Mr. SHKR.MAN. The testimony which the 
gentleman comments upon iu the .second district 
is that of Parris Ellison, a man who, acting 
as judge of the election on the 30th of Jiarch, 
seized the ballot-box, after his associates had 
been driven aw.iy, swung it around his head, 
and ran out into the crowd, and hurrahed for 
Missouri. He was ouc of the men upon the 
jury which indicted Cliarles Robinson for treason, 
and his testimony was taken after we left, and is 
part of the batch oi' ex j>arte statements to which 
I have referred. 

In regard to each of the other districts, my 
colleague satisfies himself with a statement like 
this: 

'• Third Dislricl.—Th(f testimony in relation to this dis- 
trict is, I nil ilie I'co-Sliivery parly had a majority amon^ 
Ihe aciuai st-tli>r» of iho district. '' 

It is not alleged that there was a majority of 
actual residents who voted the Pro-Slavery 
ticket, but that the Pro-Slavery men had a 7na- 
jority in the district, llow can any man say it. 
Where is the evideitce of it. If that was so, why 
this invasion, why march 4,900 men two hundred 
miles into these various districts? Why this 
armed foray, if they had a Pro-Slavery majority? 
Why eiiilanger tlie perpetuity of our institutions, 
by thus striking down, for the first time, the right 
of the people to elect their own representatives? 
I shoald like to have that question answered, 



and, until it is, I will not waste further time upon 
this branch of the inquiry. After one has read 
the testimony, how strange is the conclusion of 
my colleague, contained in this summary allega- 
tion, that the Free State party was in the minority 
in the Territory at the March election, in 1855, 
for members of the Legislature; and that that 
election wa.s not carried, eitiier by force, violence, 
or non-residents, but that a majority of the 
Legislature was duly elected, as certified to by 
the Governor, and was properly constituted as a 
law-making body. 

Why, sir, the bare admissions made in the 
minority report contradict this conclusion. The 
action of Gov. Reeder is not controverted. It is 
not claimed but that he did right in setting aside 
the election iu the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 7th, 11th, and 
ItJlh districts. Now, sir, it is admitted that the 
5tlj district was carried by fraud, and that it is 
a Free State district. In the 13th district, the 
judges were driven from the polls, and took 
their poll-books and papers with them, and left. 
Now, these districts, in which the fraud and vi- 
olence is either admitted or is palpable, elect a 
majority of both Houses. I have here a table 
showing the arrangement of these districts: 

COUNCILMEX. RePKUSEXTATIVES. 

1st dist. 3 
2d " 2 



1st 


dist 


}■' 


4th 




5th 




2 


2d 




1 


3d 




) 


7 th 




1 


8 th 




J 



3d 
5th 
7th 
8th 



13th " ■) 
16th " / 



" } 

11th" 1 
12th" / 



13th 
16th 



16 



The number of Coancilmen was 13. 

The number of House was 26. 

In addition to these, one Free State Council- 
man, M. F. Conway, was elected in the 6th 
Council district, and one Free State Rejiresenta- 
tive, S. D. Houston, was elected in the 8ih Repre- 
sentative district, composed of the 9th and 10th 
election districts. In all these districts, the 
Free State majority was beyond all reasonable 
dispute, except in the 13th and 16th districts. 
Even excluding these, the House would have been 
a tie, and the Council one Free State majority. 

Mr. STEPHENS. In the 16th election district, 
in which the election was set aside by Governor 
Reeder, the second election went just as the first 
one did, and Governor Reeder commissioned the 
same men. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The testimony will show 
that this second election in the 16th district was 
the only one which was not fair. 

Mr. STEPHENS. I say that the testimony 
shows that it was perfectly fair, that it was con- 
sidered to be lair, and there was no protest 
against it by the Free State party. 

Mr. PHELPS. I desire to make a statement. 

Mr. SIIER.MAN. If I submit to every inter- 
ruption, it will (jccuiiy all my time. If gentle- 
men will extend It as much as they use it, they 
may interrujit me as much as they please. 

In answer to these assertions, I state that the 



testimony is as conclusive as any testimony can 
be, that at the election on the 22d of May, to fill 
the vacancy, several hiinilreil residents of Jlis- 
souri went over to that election, and voted there. 
Mr. SiTEPIiEXS. If there is a particle of 
proof til at over litty Missourians went over, I de- 
sire to see it. 

Mr. SlIEILMAX. In regard to the action of the 
Governor, referred to by the gentleman a few 
moments since, I may here say, thai it resulted in 
nothing, because the same motives which in- 
duced the invasion, caused the allejied Legishi- 
ture to, and it did, set aside his oOicial certili- 
cates, upon whicli the gentleman now relies. 

While my colleague, by general statements, 
disputes the conclusions of the report, he does 
not controvert any distinct fact or allegatiou 
contained iu it. The report gives facts, and 
sustains them by names, dates, and references. 
They are given in such detail, that, if not sus- 
tained by the proof, it could be readily noticed, j 
Yet, no distinct fact alleged in the rei)ort is ilis- I 
pnted, and my colleague contents himself with a \ 
general denial, and iu this way endeavors to 
overthrow the sworn testimou}- of hundreds of 
witnesses, many of whom are his own friends 
and constituents. Thus, while admitting "that a 
liirge number of Missonrian.-^ went over to the 
Territory on the day of election,'' he says th.at 
they went merely to prevent illegal voting by 
Eastern emigrants; but he says that only a few, 
whose names are given, are proven to liave voted ; 
and not as many, in all. as there were Eastern em- 
igrants Avho voted illegally at Lawrence. And 
yet the proof is conclusive, that no Eastern em- 
igrants voted except at Lawrence; and of these, 
not over fifty illegally, and these fifty were bona 
fide settlers in the Territory, '.lut had not selected 
their claims. And it is as conclusively proven 
as any such fact can be, that 4,908 residents of 
Jlissouri, who came in armed and organized 
bands, with cannon, flags, guns, and all the 
paraphernalia of war, voted, and their names are 
found in the poll-books. No doubt, many more 
came, who, like my colleague, did not vote. If 
my colleague's assertion is true, I would like to 
know how he will answer these questions. 

How came there to be 6,300 votes cast, when 
there were but 2,900 legal voters in the Terri- 
tory, and, of these, less than one half voted? 

If the Missourians only went to prevent the 
Eastern emigrants from voting, why did they go 
into every Council district, and every Represent- 
ative district but one, when it is admitted that 
all these emigrants were at Lawrence? 

Why did they marshal 5,000 armed men, 
merely to prevent the white males among 500 
emigrants from voting? for tne extent of the en- 
tire Eastern and Xonhern emigration, lliatsfiring, 
is shown by them to be 500, including women 
and children. 

Sir, it is idle to di.«pute the facts in this case. 
■ I have been astonished that gentlemen, in the 
face of testimony that would convict of crime 
in any court, will still deny or evade. They may 
excuse and palliate, they may talk about Emi- 
grant Aid Societies, and Congressional inter- 
ference, and all circumstances of mitigation 
which ingenuity can devise, but it is too late for 
denial— the glaring facts stand out, proven by 



testimony beyond reasonable doubt, that at the 
first Legislative election, the first and the only 
opportunity of the people of that Territory to 
exercise the ]iolitical power given to them, they 
were controlled by non-residents. 

Why, then, will gentlemen still talk to U3 
about popular s'overeignty, and appeal to us to 
leave the people of the Territory to settle the 
question of Slavery for themselves. Why, sir, 
ever since this controversy w-.is reopened by the 
repeal of the Missouri Comjiromise, the settlers 
have only asked that jioor boon. They have 
again and again, and now a[)peal to yoii for pro- 
tection against non-resiilents, and you deny the 
power of Congress to even consider their com- 
plaints. You refer them to the President and the 
Judiciary; and yet, the other day, you refu.-ed to 
direct the President to take the only steps by 
which he can protect them in their rights. The 
gentleman from Georgia, turning to me, says that 
in the amendment to the Army bill, offered by 
me and adopted by the House, we gave the Pres- 
ident extraordinary powers. Why, sir, he has 
already exercised all the powers given by that 
amendment, but not for the peaceful purpose 
there stated. Instead of preserving the jjcace 
and preventing the commission of crimes dis- 
graceful to the age, he has taken sides with the 
invading party, and has caused the arms of the 
United States to be distributed among mere 
partisans, to be used for purjioses of oppression. 
The House only declares that the .army and 
military stores shall not be used in that way, 
and I trust it will adhere to that position. 

Sir, while I would take nothing from the con- 
stitutional powers of the President, I would add 
nothing to them. Look at his action heretofore ! 
Read the testimony of Governor Rceder, when 
he came to Washington, and fully detailed all 
the incidents of the 30th of March ! Think how 
the rights of that infant settlement were talked 
over — chaffered with — bartered! How a mission 
to China, or another trust of equal profit and im- 
portance, was discussed, as a means to induce a 
resignation byReeder! This interview between 
the Governor and the President presents a pain- 
ful scene, upon which I do not wish to comment. 
Contrast the conduct of the President with the 
Shawnee Mission Legislature and the Topeka 
Legislature — the one elected by the means I have 
staiid, and of which he was fully informed by 
Reeder — the other a movement of citizens, and 
none but citizens, of the Territory, to avoid the 
evils of a base submission to wrong on the ono 
hand, and anarchy on the other. The one is 
recognised — paid out of tiie national Treasury — 
and sanctioned and sustained by the military 
force ; the other is dispersed by this same force, 
and its members harassed by groundless prose- 
cutions. Sir, with all respect to the President, 
as a man, I must condemn his conduct in this 
struggle between the citizens of Missouri and 
Kansas, as a mixture of weakness, indecision, and 
wrong, unworthy his high position. He not only 
refused to protect the citizens of Kansas from 
invasion, but now, with the facts fully proven, 
he insists upon enforcing the enactments of a 
Legislative Assembly imposed by it; and, more 
than all, he sustains a Judiciary that has allowed 
all its powers to be perverted to sustain oppre^- 



eion and -wron j. Judge Lecompte holds the ofiRce 
of Chief Justice at the pleasure of the President; 
and yet, in .May, 1855, this man attends a bit- 
terly partisan meeting, addresses it, and sustains 
resolutions which look to and lead to unlawful 
violence, suppress the liberty of speech, and 
prejudge the very question which we are now 
told should be left to his judgmeut. He so 
administers the criminal law, that no crime is 
punished, if it be committed by a Pro-Slavery 
mau — that arson, robbery, and murder, are done, 
and sanctioned by his officers, without fear of 
punishment. He allows indictments against 
houses, printing presses, and bridges, to be found 
in his court; and then, without notice to the 
owners, or trial of any kiud, allows llie property 
to be destroyed by a mob, marshalled under his 
oflicers. To facilitate this kind of law and jus- 
tice, and enable his oiUcers to be present, he 
adjourns his court. He revives the doctrine of 
constructive treason, aud under such charges 
allows leading citizens of the Territory to be 
arrested and detained in custody, and refuses the 
prisoners the privilege of bail. They are charged 
with treason! Treason against what? Surely 
not against the Kausas-Nebraska bill. Since the 
passage of that law, no man gainsays its force. 
Each of these prisoners is willing to leave the 
question to the people, undeterred by non- 
residents. 

Mr. STEPHENS. I would ask the gentleman 
whether he is willing to leave the question to the 
people of the Territory to settle? 

Mr. SHERMAN. 1 will answer that at some 
other time — I do not choose to be interrupted. 
To do so, would draw me from my present pur- 
pose, wiiich is to show that the Judiciary, as a 
remedy, is utterly futile. Here is a certified copy 
of the indictment, charging with treason men 
who are now held in ignominious servitude, while 
wo are parsing our days in trying the validity' 
of the Legislative Assembly whose acts they 
are charged with resisting. The crime alleged 
against them is, that they will not consent that 
a Government of force and fraud shall be substi- 
tuted for that which you provided for them. 
The indictment does not, on its face, allege a case 
of treason; and, besides, it alleges facts which 
everybody knows are utterly untrue. The overt 
act (as lawyers call it) is laid on the 20th of 
May — the day before Lawrence was sacked. On 
that day, sir, Charles Robinson was in the cus- 
tody of armed men in Missouri. He was stopped 
without warrant, while passing with his wife on 
a national highway, and detained until this 
indictment was found. No overt act, within the 
meamug of the Constitution, is alleged. All the 
others who are named in this indictment, l>ut 
one, were absent from the Territory at the time 
when the treason is charged to have, been com- 
mitted. 



Sir, there is no remedy for these wrongs, nnlceg 
Congress administers it. It opened this 

'■ Direful spring 
Of woes uiiiriimbered," 

by the repeal of this Missouri Compromise. It 
is the governing power, and must take the re- 
sponsibility. If we cannot agree upon the only 
true and radical remedy — the restoration of tha 
Missouri restriction — let us, at least, prevent a 
civil war ; let us withdraw the arms of the Uni- 
ted States from excited men ; let ns suspend the 
execution of laws whose validity is denied ; let 
us stop the hounds of Judge Lecompte, lest our 
country be disgraced by another " Campaign in 
the West," so infamous in English history; and 
beware lest a repetition of that historical crime 
shall bring again the fate of James II and of 
Jeffries. Take from him the power to punish 
honest men for fictitious crimes. 

I trust that every representative of the people 
of the United States is willing to put a stop to 
these evils. To do this, three things must be 
done. Tiie sitting Delegate has no just right here. 
Although I entertain feelings of much kindness 
for him, personally, yet I shall vote for his ex- 
clusion, because he is the representative here of 
the force and fraud which carried the election 
on the 30th of .March. In the next place, the 
pretended laws of Kansas ought to be declared 
null and void, or repealed. And then the mili- 
tia of that Territory ought to be disarmed, and 
the whole force of the Government should be 
used, if necessary, to keep the peace. For God's 
sake, keep the peace ! I would, if it were possi- 
ble, tie down every citizen of the Territory to his 
home, and protect him from invasion and judi- 
cial oppression. The worst evil that could befall 
our country is civil war ; but the outrages ia 
Kansas cannot be continued much longer with- 
out producing it. To our Southern brethren, I 
especially appeal. In the name of Southern rights, 
crimes have been committed, and are being com- 
mitted, which I know you cannot and do not 
approve. These have excited a feeling in the 
Northern States that is deepening and strength^ 
ening daily. It may produce acts of retaliation. 
You are in a minority, and, from the nature oi 
your institutions, your relative power is yearl' 
decreasing. In excusing this invasion from Mi* 
souri — in attempting to hold on to an advantage 
obtained by force and fraud — you arc setting 
an example which, in its ultimate consequences, 
may trample your rights under foot. Until these 
wrongs are righted, you must expect Northeri 
men to unite to redress them. It may not be th' 
year, but, as sure as there is a God in heave 
such a union will be effected ; and you will gaii 
nothing by sustaining Northern agitators in viO' 
lating the compromises of your fathers. 



! 



BffKLL & BLANCHARD, Printars, Washington. 



nr^i^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



iillllillillllilimiiii III! 11" nil mil 11" III! ^ 
014 136 027 9 # '" 




